DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution of Minor Parties Elected to the Australian Senate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution of Minor Parties Elected to the Australian Senate Small Parties, Big Changes: The Zareh Ghazarian Evolution of Minor Parties Elected to the Australian Senate∗ Minor parties, sometimes referred to as small parties, have been the subject of much interest, especially in European political systems where they have often been crucial in forming coalition governments. In recent years, however, there has been growing interest in minor parties in Australia. This was not always the case as it was the major parties which were the centre of political attention. This is understandable given Australia follows the Westminster system where the government is formed by the party (or parties) that wins a majority of seats in the lower house. The Australian parliamentary system, however, has a powerful Senate.1 Indeed, the Senate has almost all the powers of the House of Representatives. Furthermore, a bill must be passed by both houses in order to become law. Aside from its structural importance, the Senate is the chamber in which minor parties have won parliamentary representation, sometimes wielding the balance of power and exerting significant influence over the policies of governments. The following discussion will explore the rise of minor parties in Australia, with particular emphasis on the parties that won seats in the Senate in the post-war period. It will highlight the significant changes to the type of minor party winning Senate representation over the last seven decades, especially in terms of their sources of mobilisation and the role they seek to play in the political debate. I aim to show how newer minor parties are qualitatively different to older minor parties. Minor parties elected from the 1950s to 1983 were the result of major party fragmentation. They had policy platforms but positioned themselves as either opponents or ‘watchdogs’ of the major parties. Minor parties elected from 1984, however, advanced a specific policy agenda linked to broader social movements. This evolution in the type of minor party elected to the Senate has implications for party competition, national government and policy outcomes. In highlighting the changing type of minor party winning Senate representation, I hope to construct an analytical framework to understand the role and power of minor parties in contemporary Australian politics. ∗ This paper was presented as a lecture in the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House, Canberra, on 17 March 2017. 1 Stanley Bach, Platypus and Parliament: The Australian Senate in Theory and Practice, Department of the Senate, Canberra, 2003. 1 This discussion will examine parties in the chronological order in which they were elected to the Senate, starting in 1949, when the voting system of proportional representation was used for the first time, and including the most recent election in 2016. It draws on information obtained through interviews I conducted with parliamentarians, office-bearers and supporters of minor parties, as well as from official party documents, media reports and academic analyses. In some cases, I use pseudonyms to maintain the anonymity requested by those who generously gave their time and discussed their thoughts and feelings about minor parties in Australia. The rules of the game As Maurice Duverger reminds us, the electoral system can shape the party system.2 This has implications for the ability of minor parties to win Senate contests. Prior to 1949, a ‘winner takes all’ system of voting was used to elect senators. From the first federal election in March 1901—which was for the whole Senate—up to and including the half-Senate election in May 1917, the system was ‘multi-senator-plurality’.3 This resulted in lopsided outcomes in which either the government or opposition parties dominated the chamber. In 1948, the Chifley Labor government enacted the single transferable vote (STV) method of proportional representation for Senate elections.4 This change was to have a significant impact on subsequent Senate elections.5 In 1983, the Hawke government made further changes to the Senate voting system. These reforms, which first applied to the federal election in 1984, also had a profound effect on subsequent Senate contests.6 As shown in Table 1, twelve minor parties have won Senate representation in the 33 years since the reforms, compared to just three minor parties over a similar period prior to the reforms. In 2016, the Turnbull government responded to growing calls to reform the Senate electoral system after new minor parties, especially the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, were able to claim Senate seats with a very small primary vote. Under the reform, voters are no longer required to give preferences to all candidates. 2 Maurice Duverger, Political Parties, their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, 3rd edn, trans. B. North and R. North, Methuen, London, 1967. 3 Ian McAllister, Malcolm Mackerras and Carolyn Brown Boldiston, Australian Political Facts, 2nd edn, Macmillan, South Melbourne, 1997, p. 68. 4 David M. Farrell and Ian McAllister, Australian Electoral System: Origins, Variations and Consequences, University of NSW Press, Sydney, 2006. 5 Campbell Sharman, ‘The representation of small parties and independents in the Senate’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 34, no. 3, 1999, pp. 353–61. 6 Joan Rydon, A Federal Legislature: The Australian Commonwealth Parliament 1901–1980, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986; Campbell Sharman, ‘The Senate, small parties and the balance of power’, Politics, vol. 21, no. 2, 1986, pp. 20–31. 2 Small Parties, Big Changes Instead, voters needed to indicate their first six parties or groups in order of preference above the line on the ballot paper, or at least 12 candidates if voting below the line. Table 1: Minor parties elected to the Australian Senate since introduction of proportional representation Minor party Year first Senate seat won Democratic Labor Party (DLP)* 1955 Liberal Movement 1974 Australian Democrats 1977 Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP) 1984 WA Greens 1990 Australian Greens 1996 Pauline Hanson’s One Nation 1998 Family First 2004 ‘New’ DLP 2010 Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 2013 Palmer United Party (PUP) 2013 Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (AMEP) 2013 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party 2016 Nick Xenophon Team 2016 Jacqui Lambie Network 2016 *Originally called the Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist). The ‘old’ minor party type: the ‘secessionists’ The Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist), which was later renamed the Democratic Labor Party (DLP), was the first minor party to break the major party monopoly in the Senate. It won its first seat in the Senate in 1955. The party came about as a result of a dispute within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) over the issue 3 of perceived communist influence in its ranks.7 The DLP positioned itself as an anti-communist force and its hostility towards communism underpinned its policy ethos, especially in the areas of foreign affairs, defence and public policy.8 Moreover, the DLP positioned itself as an explicitly anti-Labor Party. In fact, the party stated this by describing its purpose as a ‘road block…across the ALP’s path and so deny it the fruits of office’.9 Moreover, the party sought to ‘wage a war of attrition against the ALP and so compel it to break its communist connections and again become the acceptable alternative’ party of government.10 The DLP won seats until the 1970 election. It continually opposed Labor in electoral terms and sided with the coalition in the Senate on questions of policy.11 The party placed greater emphasis on promoting socially conservative moral policies throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, but its principal objective remained as being an anti-Labor Party.12 However, after failing to win seats following the 1970 election, the DLP disintegrated. The party re-formed in Victoria in the 1980s and, as will be discussed later, returned to the Senate in 2010, albeit with a different source of mobilisation and raison d’etre. While the DLP was in the Senate, the Liberal Reform Group emerged in 1966. The group later became the Australia Party and was made up of ‘disillusioned Liberals’13 who were united by their opposition to the Vietnam War, as well as to the DLP’s presence in the Senate. The Australia Party gained significant attention in the political debate but was unable to win a Senate seat at a general election.14 The next minor party to win Senate representation was the Liberal Movement, a party which resulted from a split within the Liberal and Country League (LCL) in South Australia. It was led by the South Australian LCL Premier Steele Hall, who had sought to modernise the operation and policy agenda of the LCL.15 Hall had also embarked on a campaign to reform the state’s malapportioned electoral system, from which his party had benefitted. Hall’s changes to the electoral system contributed to the LCL’s state election loss in 1970, making his position as leader untenable. He resigned from the party and created the Liberal Movement as a faction within the 7 P.L. Reynolds, The Democratic Labor Party, Jacaranda, Milton, Queensland, 1974. 8 Democratic Labor Party, Focus: Journal of the Democratic Labor Party, July 1965; M. Lyons, ‘Defence, the family and the battler: the Democratic Labor Party and its legacy’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 43, no. 3, 2008, pp. 425–42. 9 Democratic Labor Party, Origin and Role of the DLP NSW Branch, Sydney, NSW, 1969, pp. 3–4. 10 Ibid. 11 L.F. Crisp, ‘The DLP vote 1958–1969—and after’, Politicals, vol. 5, no. 1, 1970, pp. 62–6. 12 Lyons, op. cit. 13 Sam Everingham, Gordon Barton: Australia’s Maverick Entrepreneur, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2009, p. 113. 14 Ibid. 15 Steele Hall (ed), A Liberal Awakening: the LM Story, Investigator Press, Leabrook, SA, 1973.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?
    Which political parties are standing up for animals? Has a formal animal Supports Independent Supports end to welfare policy? Office of Animal Welfare? live export? Australian Labor Party (ALP) YES YES1 NO Coalition (Liberal Party & National Party) NO2 NO NO The Australian Greens YES YES YES Animal Justice Party (AJP) YES YES YES Australian Sex Party YES YES YES Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO3 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its structure is still unclear. Benefits for animals would depend on how the policy was executed and whether the Office is independent of the Department of Agriculture in its operations and decision-making.. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO4 2The Coalition has no formal animal welfare policy, but since first publication of this table they have announced a plan to ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 3Pirate Party Australia policy is to “Enact a package of reforms to transform and improve the live exports industry”, including “Provid[ing] assistance for willing live animal exporters to shift to chilled/frozen meat exports.” Family First NO5 No policy No policy 4Nick Xenophon Team’s policy on live export is ‘It is important that strict controls are placed on live animal exports to ensure animals are treated in accordance with Australian animal welfare standards. However, our preference is to have Democratic Labour Party (DLP) NO No policy No policy Australian processing and the exporting of chilled meat.’ 5Family First’s Senator Bob Day’s position policy on ‘Animal Protection’ supports Senator Chris Back’s Federal ‘ag-gag’ Bill, which could result in fines or imprisonment for animal advocates who publish in-depth evidence of animal cruelty The WikiLeaks Party NO No policy No policy from factory farms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Affluence
    The politics of affluence The Institute’s recent paper on ‘the rise of the middle-class battler’ (Discussion Paper No. 49) appears to have struck a powerful chord in the community. Clive Hamilton, the report’s author, comments on the political implications of ‘imagined hardship’. No. 33 December 2002 A recent Newspoll survey, statement that they cannot afford to buy commissioned by the Institute, reveals everything they really need. that 62 per cent of Australians believe that they cannot afford to buy The politics of affluence everything they really need. When we The proportion of ‘suf- Clive Hamilton consider that Australia is one of the fering rich’ in Australia is world’s richest countries, and that even higher than in the Who should pay for mater- Australians today have incomes three USA, widely regarded as nity leave? times higher than in 1950, it is the nation most obsessed remarkable that such a high proportion Natasha Stott Despoja with money. feel their incomes are inadequate. The Coalition’s Claytons health policy It is even more remarkable that almost Richard Denniss half (46 per cent) of the richest In other words, a fifth of the poorest households in Australia (with incomes households say that they do not have Letter to a farmer over $70,000 a year) say they cannot afford difficulties affording everything they Clive Hamilton to buy everything they really need. The really need, suggesting that they have proportion of ‘suffering rich’ in some money left over for ‘luxuries’. This Deep cuts in greenhouse Australia is even higher than in the USA, is consistent with anecdotal evidence that gases widely regarded as the nation most some older people living entirely on the Clive Hamilton obsessed with money.
    [Show full text]
  • Antony Green - Toying with the Senate: the Western Australian Senate Election Re-Run and Proposals for Reform by Melissa Ferreira
    Antony Green - Toying with the Senate: the Western Australian Senate Election Re-run and Proposals for Reform By Melissa Ferreira I was recently lucky enough to be selected to attend the Samuel Griffith Society Conference in Melbourne on a scholarship from the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation. The first session of the conference was focused on the ‘Institutions of Federation’, which included a presentation by the ABC’s Antony Green, well known for his work in election analysis. His topic: ‘Toying with the Senate: the Western Australian Senate Election Re-run and Proposals for Reform’. Antony’s experience and background in statistical analysis meant he was able to provide a number of very interesting observations about the way in which our Senate elections are run, have been run in the past and should be run in the future. The issue of gaming the vote in Senate elections is a serious one, particularly when the balance of power becomes the plaything of previously unheard-of micro-parties. While there are arguments to be made that this will result in more scrutiny of the government and elevate the Senate from its status as a ‘rubbber-stamp’, the concern is that there is currently a real lack of transparency in the way voting preference deals are being done and who our votes end up actually electing. A prime example of preference flows resulting in questionable outcomes is that of Senator Ricky Muir achieving a six-year term with only 0.51% of the vote. The reality of the current system of voting is that parties engage in preference harvesting, instead of attempting to support the next most similar party in terms of ideology or policy.
    [Show full text]
  • QLD Senate Results Report 2017
    Statement of Results Report Event: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Ballot: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Order Elected Candidates Elected Group Name 1 George BRANDIS Liberal National Party of Queensland 2 Murray WATT Australian Labor Party 3 Pauline HANSON Pauline Hanson's One Nation 4 Matthew CANAVAN Liberal National Party of Queensland 5 Anthony CHISHOLM Australian Labor Party 6 James McGRATH Liberal National Party of Queensland 7 Claire MOORE Australian Labor Party 8 Ian MACDONALD Liberal National Party of Queensland 9 Andrew BARTLETT The Greens 10 Barry O'SULLIVAN Liberal National Party of Queensland 11 Chris KETTER Australian Labor Party 12 Fraser ANNING Pauline Hanson's One Nation Senate 06 Nov 2017 11:50:21 Page 1 of 5 Statement of Results Report Event: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Ballot: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Order Excluded Candidates Excluded Group Name 1 Single Exclusion Craig GUNNIS Palmer United Party 2 Single Exclusion Ian EUGARDE 3 Single Exclusion Ludy Charles SWEERIS-SIGRIST Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) 4 Single Exclusion Terry JORGENSEN 5 Single Exclusion Reece FLOWERS VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! 6 Single Exclusion Gary James PEAD 7 Single Exclusion Stephen HARDING Citizens Electoral Council 8 Single Exclusion Erin COOKE Socialist Equality Party 9 Single Exclusion Neroli MOONEY Rise Up Australia Party 10 Single Exclusion David BUNDY 11 Single Exclusion John GIBSON 12 Single Exclusion Chelle DOBSON Australian Liberty Alliance 13 Single Exclusion Annette LOURIGAN Glenn
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Misconduct: the Case for a Federal Icac
    MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS A HISTORY OF MISCONDUCT: THE CASE FOR A FEDERAL ICAC INDEPENDENT JO URNALISTS MICH AEL WES T A ND CALLUM F OOTE, COMMISSIONED B Y G ETUP 1 MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS MISCONDUCT IN RESOURCES, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT Page 5 MISCONDUCT RELATED TO UNDISCLOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Page 8 POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT IN LOBBYING MISCONDUCT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO Page 11 INAPPROPRIATE USE OF TRANSPORT Page 13 POLITICAL DONATION SCANDALS Page 14 FOREIGN INFLUENCE ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS Page 16 ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT PRACTICES Page 17 CURRENT CORRUPTION WATCHDOG PROPOSALS Page 20 2 MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS FOREWORD: Trust in government has never been so low. This crisis in public confidence is driven by the widespread perception that politics is corrupt and politicians and public servants have failed to be held accountable. This report identifies the political scandals of the and other misuse of public money involving last six years and the failure of our elected leaders government grants. At the direction of a minister, to properly investigate this misconduct. public money was targeted at voters in marginal electorates just before a Federal Election, In 1984, customs officers discovered a teddy bear potentially affecting the course of government in in the luggage of Federal Government minister Australia. Mick Young and his wife. It had not been declared on the Minister’s customs declaration. Young This cheating on an industrial scale reflects a stepped aside as a minister while an investigation political culture which is evolving dangerously. into the “Paddington Bear Affair” took place. The weapons of the state are deployed against journalists reporting on politics, and whistleblowers That was during the prime ministership of Bob in the public service - while at the same time we Hawke.
    [Show full text]
  • LORD BOLINGBROKE's THEORY of PARTY and OPPOSITION1 By
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository Max Skjönsberg, HJ, Oct 2015 LORD BOLINGBROKE’S THEORY OF PARTY AND OPPOSITION1 By MAX SKJÖNSBERG, London School of Economics and Political Science Abstract: Bolingbroke has been overlooked by intellectual historians in the last few decades, at least in comparison with ‘canonical’ thinkers. This article examines one of the most important but disputable aspects of his political thought: his views on political parties and his theory of opposition. It aims to demonstrate that Bolingbroke’s views on party have been misunderstood and that it is possible to think of him as an advocate of political parties rather than the ‘anti-party’ writer he is commonly known as. It has been suggested that Bolingbroke prescribed a state without political parties. By contrast, this article seeks to show that Bolingbroke was in fact the promoter of a very specific party, a systematic parliamentary opposition party in resistance to what he perceived as the Court Whig faction in power. It will 1 I have benefited from comments by Adrian Blau, Tim Hochstrasser, Paul Keenan, Robin Mills, and Paul Stock, as well as conversations with J. C. D. Clark, Richard Bourke, and Quentin Skinner at various stages of this project. As usual, however, the buck stops with the writer. I presented an earlier and shorter version of this article at the inaugural Early-Modern Intellectual History Postgraduate Conference at Newcastle University in June 2015. Eighteenth-century spelling has been kept in quotations throughout as have inconsistencies in spelling.
    [Show full text]
  • Independents in Federal Parliament: a New Challenge Or a Passing Phase?
    Independents in Federal Parliament: A new challenge or a passing phase? Jennifer Curtin1 Politics Program, School of Political and Social Inquiry Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. [email protected] “Politics just is the game played out by rival parties, and anyone who tries to play politics in some way entirely independent of parties consigns herself to irrelevance.” (Brennan, 1996: xv). The total dominance of Australia’s rival parties has altered since Brennan made this statement. By the time of the 2001 federal election, 29 registered political parties contested seats and while only the three traditional parties secured representation in the House of Representatives (Liberals, Nationals and Labor) three independents were also elected. So could we argue that the “game” has changed? While it is true that government in Australia, both federally and in the states and territories, almost always alternates between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party (the latter more often than not in coalition with the National Party), independent members have been a feature of the parliaments for many years, particularly at the state level (Costar and Curtin, 2004; Moon,1995). Over the last decade or so independents have often been key political players: for a time, they have held the balance of power in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. More generally, since 1980 an unprecedented 56 independents have served in Australian parliaments. In 2003, 25 of them were still there. This is more than six times the number of independents elected in the 1970s. New South Wales has been the most productive jurisdiction during that time, with fourteen independent members, and Tasmania the least, with only one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Comparative Politics of E-Cigarette Regulation in Australia, Canada and New Zealand by Alex C
    Formulating a Regulatory Stance: The Comparative Politics of E-Cigarette Regulation in Australia, Canada and New Zealand by Alex C. Liber A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Health Services Organizations and Policy) in The University of Michigan 2020 Doctoral Committee: Professor Scott Greer, Co-Chair Assistant Professor Holly Jarman, Co-Chair Professor Daniel Béland, McGill University Professor Paula Lantz Alex C. Liber [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7863-3906 © Alex C. Liber 2020 Dedication For Lindsey and Sophia. I love you both to the ends of the earth and am eternally grateful for your tolerance of this project. ii Acknowledgments To my family – Lindsey, you made the greatest sacrifices that allowed this project to come to fruition. You moved away from your family to Michigan. You allowed me to conduct two months of fieldwork when you were pregnant with our daughter. You helped drafts come together and were a constant sounding board and confidant throughout the long process of writing. This would not have been possible without you. Sophia, Poe, and Jo served as motivation for this project and a distraction from it when each was necessary. Mom, Dad, Chad, Max, Julian, and Olivia, as well as Papa Ernie and Grandma Audrey all, helped build the road that I was able to safely walk down in the pursuit of this doctorate. You served as role models, supports, and friends that I could lean on as I grew into my career and adulthood. Lisa, Tony, and Jessica Suarez stepped up to aid Lindsey and me with childcare amid a move, a career transition, and a pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Balance of Power Senate Projections, Spring 2018
    Balance of power Senate projections, Spring 2018 The Australia Institute conducts a quarterly poll of Senate voting intention. Our analysis shows that major parties should expect the crossbench to remain large and diverse for the foreseeable future. Senate projections series, no. 2 Bill Browne November 2018 ABOUT THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals and commissioned research. We barrack for ideas, not political parties or candidates. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues. OUR PHILOSOPHY As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently needed. The Australia Institute’s directors, staff and supporters represent a broad range of views and priorities. What unites us is a belief that through a combination of research and creativity we can promote new solutions and ways of thinking. OUR PURPOSE – ‘RESEARCH THAT MATTERS’ The Institute publishes research that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful society. Our goal is to gather, interpret and communicate evidence in order to both diagnose the problems we face and propose new solutions to tackle them. The Institute is wholly independent and not affiliated with any other organisation. Donations to its Research Fund are tax deductible for the donor.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Volume 1 the Senators, the Senate and Australia, 1901–1929 by Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate 1988–2009
    Introduction to volume 1 The Senators, the Senate and Australia, 1901–1929 By Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate 1988–2009 Biography may or may not be the key to history, but the biographies of those who served in institutions of government can throw great light on the workings of those institutions. These biographies of Australia’s senators are offered not only because they deal with interesting people, but because they inform an assessment of the Senate as an institution. They also provide insights into the history and identity of Australia. This first volume contains the biographies of senators who completed their service in the Senate in the period 1901 to 1929. This cut-off point involves some inconveniences, one being that it excludes senators who served in that period but who completed their service later. One such senator, George Pearce of Western Australia, was prominent and influential in the period covered but continued to be prominent and influential afterwards, and he is conspicuous by his absence from this volume. A cut-off has to be set, however, and the one chosen has considerable countervailing advantages. The period selected includes the formative years of the Senate, with the addition of a period of its operation as a going concern. The historian would readily see it as a rational first era to select. The historian would also see the era selected as falling naturally into three sub-eras, approximately corresponding to the first three decades of the twentieth century. The first of those decades would probably be called by our historian, in search of a neatly summarising title, The Founders’ Senate, 1901–1910.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 'WA APPROACH' to NATIONAL PARTY SURVIVAL John Phillimore
    This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Phillimore, J. and McMahon, L. 2015. Moving Beyond 100 Years: The "WA Approach" to National Party Survival. Australian Journal of Politics and History. 61 (1): pp. 37-52], which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12085. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving at http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-820227.html#terms MOVING BEYOND 100 YEARS: THE ‘WA APPROACH’ TO NATIONAL PARTY SURVIVAL John Phillimore* Lance McMahon Submitted to and accepted by Australian Journal of Politics and History *Corresponding Author: [email protected] or 9266 2849 John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University GPO Box U1987 Perth WA 6845 Professor John Phillimore is Executive Director of the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University. Lance McMahon is a Research Associate at the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University. June 2014 1 MOVING BEYOND 100 YEARS: THE ‘WA APPROACH’ TO NATIONAL PARTY SURVIVAL Abstract Since its formation in 1913, the Western Australian branch of the National Party has faced many challenges to its survival. Electoral reform removing rural malapportionment in 2005 prompted changes in strategic direction, including abandoning coalition with the Liberal Party and creating a discrete image, branding and policy approach. Holding the balance of power after the 2008 election, the Party adopted a post-election bargaining strategy to secure Ministries and funding for its ‘Royalties for Regions’ policy. This ‘WA approach’ is distinctive from amalgamation and coalition arrangements embraced elsewhere in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicameralism in the New Zealand Context
    377 Bicameralism in the New Zealand context Andrew Stockley* In 1985, the newly elected Labour Government issued a White Paper proposing a Bill of Rights for New Zealand. One of the arguments in favour of the proposal is that New Zealand has only a one chamber Parliament and as a consequence there is less control over the executive than is desirable. The upper house, the Legislative Council, was abolished in 1951 and, despite various enquiries, has never been replaced. In this article, the writer calls for a reappraisal of the need for a second chamber. He argues that a second chamber could be one means among others of limiting the power of government. It is essential that a second chamber be independent, self-confident and sufficiently free of party politics. I. AN INTRODUCTION TO BICAMERALISM In 1950, the New Zealand Parliament, in the manner and form it was then constituted, altered its own composition. The legislative branch of government in New Zealand had hitherto been bicameral in nature, consisting of an upper chamber, the Legislative Council, and a lower chamber, the House of Representatives.*1 Some ninety-eight years after its inception2 however, the New Zealand legislature became unicameral. The Legislative Council Abolition Act 1950, passed by both chambers, did as its name implied, and abolished the Legislative Council as on 1 January 1951. What was perhaps most remarkable about this transformation from bicameral to unicameral government was the almost casual manner in which it occurred. The abolition bill was carried on a voice vote in the House of Representatives; very little excitement or concern was caused among the populace at large; and government as a whole seemed to continue quite normally.
    [Show full text]